Wha? Microsoft had one patch accepted, so yes, he's represented someone who does.

Nobody has said it's bad, literally. If anyone had, that's not only a: something for the copyright holder to decide what to do (along with the purported violator), and b: something that has nothing to do with court unless a is resolved first.

Lots of avenues exist outside of going to court. We're not all microsoft and patent trolling for fud, after all.

... and you think Microsoft would go to court to "validate" the GPL for us???? ROFL

I think Microsoft would find it worthwhile to go to court to "validate" that the GPL means that anyone who has ever contributed to non-assignment GPL project has standing to sue over any alleged GPL violation by any distributor of any work derivative of that project (they'd probably like to do the same with assignment-based GPL products under an intended-beneficiary theory, though that's more a stretch legally.) Now, in one s

It would also help validate the perception of GPL works as legally risky propositions for downstream users.

I have, of late, come to the conclusion that doing anything with a computer more complex operating the power switch is a legally risky proposition. If you write code then chances are high that there is someone else out there who feels entitled to a cut through patent, copyright or trademark (specious or not). Always a cut of the profits but never a cut of the costs/losses.

So what would be so revolutionary about that? If someone makes a photobook with 100 licensed photographs but doesn't care one bit about stopping copyright infringement, then of course the owners of each photograph can go after them instead. It's only legally risky if you violate the license, and between having one mega-corporation with lawyers and a real "lost income" claim as opposed to thousands of mostly harmless OSS pundits, I'd take the FSF over Microsoft, Apple or Oracle on my ass any day.

You can make a new phone book, it can look different but the information inside it must still be the same and it would not be infringing any copyrights.
Headers files are the same, you can dress them up any way you want but they still must define everything the same way or everything else will break.

"It seems totally bogus. We've always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL, and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too.

The views of the copyright holders are not irrelevant. When significant copyright holders state their intentions, this enables others who use the code to know whether they are likely to be subject to litigation or not. When you are a lawyer, the world revolves around the law... but for the rest of us, we care about intentions.

I'm not saying that the legal standing is obvious; there are certainly cases where a header file could contain copyrightable material (for example, C++ templates). But the kernel API h

The copyright holders can always do whatever they want with their code. They can certainly give different licenses to different people. The GPL does not (and can not) bind the authors at all. It is not the 'legal opinion' of programmers that matters, it is their code.

There's also a difference between medication that only a physician is allowed to prescribe (such as oxycodone) and medication that any adult can prescribe for himself (such as ibuprofen). How does that enter into your analogy?

If the author/copyright holder says the headers are not a copyright violation, then regardless of the license that would seem to indicate permission.

Yes, but one copyright holder can't give his permission to use the project in a non-GPL compliant way, because it would still violate the license on the rest of the code. If Linus owned the copyright on all the code in the kernel it'd be a different matter but he has 1-2% of it. Even if the header is his, he can't give permission to let people use the other 98-99% as they want because it forms a whole work. You're not just using his interface, you are using all the code behind it.

Lawyer schmoyer, who cares. If Edward Naughton want's to make a bunch of chug-a-lug claims about Anroid and GPL, well, let him put his money where his mouth is and sue Google. Until that happens, it is all empty FUD and you don't need a lawyer, a judge or a court of law to decide that.

The reality is, there is all sorts of leeway with GPL. Don't use it in commercial application or distribute it and no one really cares what you do. Adhere to the principles or spirit of GPL and contribute to the source, aga

I understand it is not a democracy. However committing a copyright violation requires that the minority prove by preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. Large numbers of people with a well over majority stake in the work saying there is no violation is likely to make that impossible.

If the headers are merely an experession of documented standards like the SVR4 and BSD compatability macros, then I don't see how it could possibly be copyrightable. The whole point of standards is to share them, not own them.

But I could see a copyright troll trying to take the interpretation that they are copyrightable, as happened with the timezone data.

don't forget that naughton has worked with microsoft, to boot. His credibility is not only in question, but it's basically inaccurate. This is just banging the same old fud drum that naughton raised before.

If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.

If 'saying it's ok' amounts to a verbal license then there really isn't any GP

Just because a file has a GPL license doesn't mean that the entire contents of the file are copyright, same as a copyright book may also contain, for example, a poem that is in the public domain. You're free to copy the poem.

In the case of the headers, there are large portions that are not under copyright (and this ignores the fact that many of the patches NEVER contained copyright

Nobody even mentioned fair use. There's no need - the material was not subject to copyright. But since you brought it up, if everything in the Disney movie (your example) were in the public domain or otherwise not protected by copyright, you can distribute the whole thing.

Not everything in a gpl-licensed file is protected. Strip out the protected elements, and the rest is freely distributable, without attribution.

Besides, even the kernel devs said it's okay, and they DO have standing.

Much of the code (type definitions, macros, and function prototypes) contained in those headers are essentially in the public domain as a result of being part of either the ANSI C standard or the POSIX/SUS standards, or both. There could be a violation beyond that, but Naughton nor Miller seems to be bothered enough to post actual snippets of infringing code. Instead they adapt the Darl McBride/SCO approach: I tell you, megabytes of my client's intellectual property have been dumped into Android without t

The headers are non-copywritable, the plaintiff is a lawyer with too much free time on his hands and no client. If you are worried about setting a bad precedent, I would be more concerned with the idea of lawyers suing for issues that even the supposedly wronged are upset with. Ambulance chaser style lawyers that convince people they are wronged before they think so themselves are bad enough, now we are going to get a bunch of lawyers suing without consent of the clients? What happens next, woman trips in store, says everything is OK, lawyer sues store for unsafe floors? Current problem we have, despite the stupid high number of frivelous lawsuits, even if we pretend they aren't a huge problem, all lawyers except patent lawyers are currently overpopulated to the point where there are more of them then jobs to do. Larger problem, now they are starting to make lawsuits without needing to be hired?

Most headers are non-copyrightable. There may be some headers that have logic in them that might qualify for copyright. From what I know, the ones in question are mainly #include statements with a few #ifdef. As such they fall under scènes à faire exclusion outlined by Gates v Bando and Computer Associates v Altai.

Most headers are non-copyrightable. There may be some headers that have logic in them that might qualify for copyright. From what I know, the ones in question are mainly #include statements with a few #ifdef. As such they fall under scÃnes Ã faire exclusion outlined by Gates v Bando and Computer Associates v Altai.

I'd say comments are much more likely to be copyrightable. I can put a little poem into each header file that I create as a comment, and if you copy the header file including my poem, it's very clearly copyright infringement.

If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation. Even other GPL'd software, since none of those ever include the header files they were built against as part of their source package, so they have all failed to meet the requirement of distributing the "corresponding source code".

If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation.

No it isn't, a proprietary, BSD, ASL, etc.. -licensed application linking to a GPL-violating (if that were the case here) system library would not be a GPL violation in itself as there is explicit provision in the GPL that states that you can link to system libraries (which includes the kernel) with *any* code proprietary or not without being affected by the GPL in any way, they do not have any obligation to release source code.

IANAL, but my understanding is if it's just the header files that have changed, and if the header files do not contain code, but only interface definitions, then no copyright violation has occurred. That type of header file is just a list of interfaces, and a list isn't subject to copyright. Since the GPL relies on copyright being valid, the GPL can't apply to that type of header file.

If the header file contains code, then the that code is subject to copyright, and therefore the GPL, but the interface def

If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.

Yes because it all comes down to something that goes right to the heart of our system and that is the right to do what you like with what you have created. if those that have actually written the code says they can change it, hell make it into t-shirts that is THEIR business. Nobody has the right to tell those guys what they can and can't do with code they wrote period.

First of all creating a modified version of a piece of GPL software without releasing it is permitted by the license. The license boils down to the requirement that if you release any of the code, you have to release the source as well. But that requirement is hard to violate with header files. If you release the header files, you have released the source since those header files are source code

Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights. I don't think it's good for everyone that Google blatantly violates every copyright law and most importantly, every privacy law.

You show a complete lack of understanding of the issue, the GPL and of copyright. The poster owns the copyright on the patches he made to the Linux kernel, if Google is distributing code from those patches then they need a license from the author. It sounds like he has licensed that code under the GPL. The GPL defines what source code means, and it includes definition files needed to compile to prevent a licensee from doing just this sort of thing:

Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights. I don't think it's good for everyone that Google blatantly violates every copyright law and most importantly, every privacy law.

Well if they've used one of your files, then go ahead and start a suit. If not, then STFU.IIRC copyright in Linux vests with the original author of any patch, so you'd have standing if any of your files were really involved. I strongly suspect that if you really had contributed significant patches to Linux, instead of trolling, you'd have a lower Slashdot ID.

Its possible that Google do play a little fast and loose with some of their code, but since they've promised to release the source to Ice Cream Sandwich fairly soon that event will bring them into strict compliance with the GPL before someone can mutter copytright violation in court.....

IIRC copyright in Linux vests with the original author of any patch, so you'd have standing if any of your files were really involved.

So if we believe that the GP contributed a patch, then he does have standing. If we don't believe him, I'm sure we can find at least a handful of the many thousands of copyright holders who might have an interest in this.

My point isn't "Google violated copyrights" and I think this issue will be sorted out (with code) before the lawyers get involved. My point is that the whole

So if we believe that the GP contributed a patch, then he does have standing. If we don't believe him, I'm sure we can find at least a handful of the many thousands of copyright holders who might have an interest in this.

The item in question is the use of header files in other code, thusly the only code that matters is the header files and those that contributed it are the copyright holders.

Say I contribute 10 lines of code to a 100,000 line project. 95,000 of which are from a single developer. The only standing I have is those ten lines. So if the entirety of the project (with my contribution) is abused I have standing, if 5k lines of code are copied and they are not mine, they are the single developers and he has given th

Actually, more likely the SFLC which exists specifically to take such cases. But let's be much more specific. I also live in Europe and if you can name a decent sized set of lines of original work which Google has copied without license and you are willing to sue them then I'll give you 500Euro to start it off with.

And please note, there's no reason to go to the US. Google has presence in Europe and if you wrote your code here you can sue them here. Germany is probably quite a good place for that.

If you (the grandparent) can show that Google copied your orignial work. Which I doubt.

Or maybe have a quiet word with Apple or MS. Maybe they'll offer you some legal advise out of the, erm, goodness of their hearts.

Or you could just put details of what is your's here along with evidence if anything conclusive exists (that part might be difficult if the contribution was some time ago). That might stop people simply calling BS.

Does Naughton have standing to sue? The answer seems to be no as he does not hold any copyrights.

Can you sue for headers? Generally headers fall under scènes à faire [wikipedia.org] and are not copyrightable. As someone who has copyrights in Linux as you claim, consult with an IP attorney if you feel strongly about it. They will probably tell you the same thing I'm telling you.

Only if the headers have anything of the sort. My understanding is the headers in question are mostly #include and #ifdef statements which fall under scenes a faire and cannot be copyrighted. Unless you have evidence otherwise.

Pleaso don't continue to make us all look like freetards. This has been done over many times - not everything in the kernel is copyrightable. Linux contains a lot of stuff that you're free to copy. For example, stuff that came from BSD code, stuff that is governed by a public standard, stuff that is "scene a faire" material and therefore not subject to copyright, stuff that is "sweat of the brow" material and as such not subject to copyright.

You attacked me with a lie, I proved you were a liar, and look at the response... pretty long. Welcome to Troll Tuesday, where it's okay to jerk the chain of someone who lies, then tries the lame "look - wookies!" defense.:-p

Too bad your opinion means absolutely jack shit because its not your software. You own the copyrights on the bits you committed, thats it, you don't own the copyrights on the rest of the kernel because you added a line.

Your not entitled to everything in the world just because someone slapped GPL on the chain somewhere. Dipshits like you give GPL a bad name.

Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights.

Specifically which copyrights are you holding that they are infringing? I'm guessing your claim is false and you don't actually know what you're talking about. The writers of the code in question maintain that the code is not even copyrightable.

No. If he has used Linux he has standing, because his rights may have been violated by Google not showing the headers.

Where is the -1 WTF mod? Google published the headers in question a while ago, and it was dealt with on slashdot back in March [slashdot.org]

"In this email from 2003, Richard Stallman says 'I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of using simple material from header files. Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work. Tha

There were no problems. Go ask Linus Torvalds and Co - they have standing, and they have no problem with it.

Macros and inline functions are not necessarily protected by copyright.

Example - you make a big header file with a bunch of #defines from hex color codes to X11 color names. Not protected, because it's neither creative (one of the constitutional requirements post-feist) nor is the fact that it took time a factor (sweat of the brow work is not justification for awarding copyright protection). It

Lawyers usually prefer to see cases resolved out of court, as there's more profit in a settlement than reaching a verdict. Plus, if you have a settlement you have a contract, but nobody knows for sure what a judge or jury will decide.

SCO tried to cornhole Linux over errno.h being similar to BSD. SCO lost for the same reason and also because they suck.
Unless they abused headers to jam in a bunch of functions that might be "creative" (and that would be their content anyway), the headers should just be lists of facts.

Technically SCO v IBM never got to that point. Many of their claims got thrown out due to lack of specificity and the rest was stayed until Novell v SCO was resolved. Since Novell won, the judge in IBM doesn't have to decide if errorno.h violates copyrights--SCO doesn't have standing to ask the judge to decide in the first place.

the GPL doesn't simply require the source code to be published for each modified version of software that is distributed, it also ask that this source of modified versions comes with the same freedom of modification that the original saoftware came with.

so if you get some GPL software, modify it and distribute it, you need to publish th modified code as GPL too.but bionic is published under the same BSD-like license as the rest of android. So it would follow the GPL requirement.

Which rulings are you talking about? All I see on groklaw [groklaw.net] is the judge is asking both parties how they would like to proceed on copyright issues of the 37 APIs in question. There is no mention of headers or a ruling.

this lawyer doesn't really understand programming - even his understanding of copyright is only enough to make him dangerous. he states, for instance, that a byteswap macro, because it is clever, is copyrightable. it's not: whole works are copyrightable. further, the license for the work in question explicitly states that the headers constitute the interface at which the license stops.

there is no issue here. lawyer is trying to make business for himself and others of his species.

Or a lawyer who is secretly working for a client with an agenda. Mr. Naughton's former client is Microsoft. While he does not say they are a current client, he has scrubbed his bio to remove all references to them.

Another useless lawyer with an agenda. What else is new...
Anyone with a brain can see that Google is ripping off FOSS and doesn't give a shit about returning anything back to the community. Android IS a proprietary implemantation of the LInux kernel and shouldn't be considered part of the GNU/Linux community.

Unless you're trying to argue that they made no contribution to the project whatsoever (which is clearly false), I'm not sure what your point is. Somebody has got to provide hosting services, operate nodes, write FAQs, etc. Somebody has to do the work that isn't sexy. Not everything can be idea men inventing great new things that have never been done before; somebody has got to hold down the fort during the period after you have something new and cool but before it can stand on its own and operate independe

In the UK, lawyers are not supposed to comment on cases in which they are not involved. This is precisely to prevent touting for business like this. Do American bar associations not have similar provisions?

No, he is not within his rights. If you keep doing stuff like this, the court can call you a vexatious litigant and then you will need permission from the court to file any suits, if you had not been disbarred by then.

You're not supposed to bring suit if you have no standing and know it. He likely knows it. It's improper and unethical. The fact that it is rarely punished does not change that.

Wasn't there a rather famous lawyer who became disbarred and fined for bringing bogus lawsuits against the gaming